Preamble
I thought it would be fun to take a statistical look at the draft.

At the moment, Texans nation is split in their wish for the #1 overall pick. Some advocate taking one of the top 3 QBs (Bridgewater, Manziel, or Bortles) with the top selection. Others think that Clowney is too good to pass up and the Texans must select one of them. A third group feels that keeping the QB safe is the top priority and think taking an OT such as Robinson or Matthews is the proper way to go. There is a 4th group that advocates a trade down.

As such, Texans nation does have one thing they agree upon...the Texans need a new QB. The divergence of opinion is based on when should the Texans pull the trigger. Those in the take Clowney, Robinson, or Matthews camp believe that a QB can be had later in the draft or that the fail rate for 1st overall QBs is too high to risk on this pick and there are plenty of good QB options to be hand in the second or third round.

Method
I was curious what the numbers suggest. As such, I delved into this statistical analysis. The objective was to determine:

1. What is the relative success rate for QBs, DEs, and OTs selected #1 in the NFL draft vs the failure rate of the same positions.

2. What is the relative success rate for QBs, DEs, and OTs selected in the 2nd or 3rd round of the NFL draft vs the failure rate of the same positions.

3. Compare these rates together over a long enough point to help determine a trend.

For this analysis, I decided to set my NFL draft parameters as 2000-2012. It gives me 13 years worth of data, which should be a large enough sample size.

Definitions

1. Success. I am defining Success as a quality player. In my mind a quality player has to be one who is able to positively affect his team and help them to win games. A quality player is one who also positively contributes in some way on the field of play.

2. Failure. I am defining Failure as a subpar player. In my mind this player either was unable to positively affect play on the field, is out of the league, or was unable to get on the field.

These numbers suggest that many QBs have been taken. That would make sense since it is such an important position. As such, a 60% success rate is quite good. DE is 50%, but only has 2 selections. OT has 3 overall and only a 33.33% success rate.

I included the names of the success QBs for a reason. Look at the threshold of the term success. An argument can be made that even some of these guys should not be in the successful group, thus making it even smaller. What clearly stands out to me is the piss poor success rate for the 2nd/3rd round QBs. Whether its 22% or lower its horrendously bad. The success rate for OTs and DEs are remarkable similar: right around 50% which is a great number to have.

Conclusion
Based on my statistical analysis, I conclude that the notion that fail rate for 1st overall QBs is too high to risk on this pick does not bear out statistically. QBs taken with the overall #1 selection have a 60% success rate. The second conclusion is that there are simply not enough good QB options to be hand in the second or third round. In fact, it can even be argued that players like a Russell Wilson or Nick Foles, who may have in the past had imperfections in their draft profiles may go higher in subsequent years. Russell Wilson fell into the third round because he lacked ideal size. However, due to his success, a team is more likely to take a chance on someone else who resembles Wilson thus not allowing him to fall as much as he did. Thus, finding the next Russell Wilson becomes that much harder.

Therefore I conclude, statistically speaking, the best strategy is as follows:

1st overall Pick: Best QB prospect.
2nd round: Best OT or DE prospect.
3rd round: Best OT or DE prospect.

Thank you for taking the time to read this. Sometimes I go a little overboard and do not mean to write an entire essay, but I find i have a lot that I want to say. I understand that this is a message board where these is an opportunity of give and take...back and forth...discussion and counterpoint. I am aware that sometimes my posts can become long and cumbersome and for that I apologize. I sometimes get an idea and in order to explore it thoroughly it takes a little time and perhaps more characters than are warranted. But, as I said, thanks again for taking the time to read this.

This is not a normal QB yr. Mettenberger may fall to the 3rd rd. He probably would've been a top 15 pick. Murray probably would've been a late 1st -mid 2nd rd pick.

How does that figure into his statistical evaluation?

Tell me more about Bruce Smith/Reggie White/LT etc..... premium pass rushers who went #1 and changed the culture of their franchises.

Here's the raw data going all the way back to 1980; why don't you slice and dice it....LINKMan they don't make first overall picks like they did in the '80s anymore do they...? The success rate seems to be worse and worse and the decades progress...

__________________
Loyalty to any one sports team is pretty hard to justify. ...the players are always changing, the team can move to another city, you're actually rooting for the clothes when you get right down to it.

The results are pretty strong: the later you draft, the less success you have. That's not because there's something inherent about being picked in the second round that makes someone worse, but because the more teams pass on a quarterback, the more teams think he's not a franchise quarterback -- and while those evaluations aren't perfect, they're still pretty accurate. In this graph, each tranche represents the players picked with the listed draft picks: picks 1-5, picks 6-16 etc. Success in this case is my subjective evaluation as to whether a player turned into a francise quarterback for a team, with some more leniency given to late-round picks (counting David Garrard and Kyle Orton as successes, for instance).

Quote:

The objective measure I used was Pro Football Reference's Approximate Value per game started, with a minimum of 16 career starts. We can increase the granularity too. What if we use tranches of 15 players?

Whichever measure we use, the story's very clear: the farther back in the draft you go, the smaller the chance is of finding a success. It's negligible toward the end of the draft, and even in the late first round it's not very good. If you want a franchise quarterback, you have to draft him high. The more teams pass on a quarterback, the bigger the chance that he won't be that franchise passer you're looking for.

This is also pretty strong evidence that teams do a good job of ranking quarterbacks. They generally have a good idea of which quarterbacks are going to be bad, they just can't eliminate the risk among the top players. The fact that there's an element of chance does not mean that the process is random any more than playing games of chance is random -- you just have to figure out whether the reward is worth the risk...

Of course, an easier statistical analysis reveals that if the Texans take a QB at #1, he's likely to be a bust.

Don't get me wrong, I think we need to go QB at 1:1, but the Texans are already part of that 40% failure rate.

Every QB the Texans have taken with the #1 overall pick has been a bust.... 1:1, 100%

Doppleganger: I appreciate the work you did there & I agree in so much that a 1st overall QB prospect is more likely to succeed than a 2nd or 3rd overall prospect.

That should be a no brainer.

However, what I don't agree with (& I believe everyone who is saying something other than QB at 1-1) is that the best QB prospect in a class is a 1st overall QB prospect.

Now I've seen some big boards where Bridgewater is the 5th best player in the draft, & if you feel that way, I agree. You should take him #1 overall.

I will probably never have a "big board" as I'll never get around to grading them all.

But personally I give Bridgewater a low 90 grade & to me that does not say #1 overall, especially when I give several others a comparable grade. If I only had the one QB with a 90 score, again, I agree, you have to take him. But I've got 6 QBs I grade a low 90 (yes, McCarron is one of them). 6 QBs that I would be happy with taking & have the same odds of "succeeding" in the NFL, & only expect 4 at most to be taken in the 1st round.

Right now, I only see 1 QB in this class that has enough "excitement" around him to draft #1 overall, but I believe a team only drafts that kind of excitement out of desperation.

Now, in the real world I would have access to these players. I would be able to sit down with each one of them, talk to them, get to know them. I would be able to talk to their coaches, their mentors, people who've worked with & helped develop them. It is possible that that kind of access can uncover something that will separate one from the 6... so I wouldn't be surprised if someone took one of these 1st overall.

But as it stands right now, I see no reason to take a QB that early in this draft.

Whichever measure we use, the story's very clear: the farther back in the draft you go, the smaller the chance is of finding a success. It's negligible toward the end of the draft, and even in the late first round it's not very good. If you want a franchise quarterback, you have to draft him high. The more teams pass on a quarterback, the bigger the chance that he won't be that franchise passer you're looking for.

Every QB the Texans have taken with the #1 overall pick has been a bust.... 1:1, 100%

Doppleganger: I appreciate the work you did there & I agree in so much that a 1st overall QB prospect is more likely to succeed than a 2nd or 3rd overall prospect.

That should be a no brainer.

However, what I don't agree with (& I believe everyone who is saying something other than QB at 1-1) is that the best QB prospect in a class is a 1st overall QB prospect.

Now I've seen some big boards where Bridgewater is the 5th best player in the draft, & if you feel that way, I agree. You should take him #1 overall.

I will probably never have a "big board" as I'll never get around to grading them all.

But personally I give Bridgewater a low 90 grade & to me that does not say #1 overall, especially when I give several others a comparable grade. If I only had the one QB with a 90 score, again, I agree, you have to take him. But I've got 6 QBs I grade a low 90 (yes, McCarron is one of them). 6 QBs that I would be happy with taking & have the same odds of "succeeding" in the NFL, & only expect 4 at most to be taken in the 1st round.

Right now, I only see 1 QB in this class that has enough "excitement" around him to draft #1 overall, but I believe a team only drafts that kind of excitement out of desperation.

Now, in the real world I would have access to these players. I would be able to sit down with each one of them, talk to them, get to know them. I would be able to talk to their coaches, their mentors, people who've worked with & helped develop them. It is possible that that kind of access can uncover something that will separate one from the 6... so I wouldn't be surprised if someone took one of these 1st overall.

But as it stands right now, I see no reason to take a QB that early in this draft.

I used this data to find the mean, median, and standard deviation of both the CAV and Actual CAV – Expected CAV (Actual-Expected Difference, or AED) for every first round draft pick across all positions in the dataset, besides kickers (sorry Al Davis). The AED measures the difference between each player’s career performance and the mean performance of all players selected in his draft slot, which is the best tool we have for statistically measuring the merit of a draft pick...

All of the values are obviously negative, showing that most first round picks in the dataset did/have (some are still playing) not lived up to the average expectation of their draft slots. The expected CAV, however, is skewed to the right, or driven up by a few outstanding superstars, so it is no surprise that all of the values are negative.

Again, as the quarterback position is abounding with high-profile busts, the AED for quarterbacks is the lowest of any position. In the spirit of traditional wisdom, positions on the offensive line have the highest AED in the top of the first round and the second highest in the bottom.

No draft pick is a sure thing, regardless of position or pick number (see: JaMarcus Russell, QB and Tony Mandarich, OL). No scout or organization evaluates its players the same as the next one either. Every team has its own plan and priorities that take may take precedence over scouting reports or historical evidence. When evaluating first round draft picks, history can tell us a lot about how different positions are valued and how they tend to live up to (or fall short of) expectations.

great work Doppel as usual. my biggest problem is sample size is too broad & position has evolved so much just within the past couple years. look how ineffective one of the greatest QB's in NFL history looked in the Super Bowl, why? not just a great defense or great players match-up, he lacks the mobility to climb in the pocket, create time or threaten with his legs.

two best teams in the NFL both have great defenses no doubt (49ers/hawks) but what they also have is mobile, deadly, playmaker signal callers (Kap/Russell). Manziel is probably tops but Bridgewater has the best mind/arm, then next year you have two Mariota/Hundley, after which Jameis Winston. So which ever team drafts these player stands at least a 60% chance of success?

problem is only one or two teams now will have a shot @ top QB's just kinda hinges on how season plays out. never expected Texans to flop this past season but here we are, two maybe three (trade down) QB options or best DE/OLB prospect since Mario Williams in 2006.

great work Doppel as usual. my biggest problem is sample size is too broad & position has evolved so much just within the past couple years. look how ineffective one of the greatest QB's in NFL history looked in the Super Bowl, why? not just a great defense or great players match-up, he lacks the mobility to climb in the pocket, create time or threaten with his legs.

Looks like drawing too broad a conclusion from too small a sample size. Manning's mobility was no different than the rest of the season or his career. I think Corrosion is more onto the explanation that the Seahawks disrupted Manning's under 2 second game which has essentially nullified pass rush his entire career. Manning behind an injured OL was sacked significantly less this season than for his already exceptional career. (once every 36.6 attempts rather than once in 31 attempts)

I've been saying for months that the chances of landing a quality QB drop significantly once you get outside the top 10 picks. Using a 1st round pick on a QB is the riskiest way to use it, but there is no better way to secure a quality QB than with a 1st round pick. Texans have to decide if the prospect is worth the risk. That's all it really comes down to.